NIFA Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Watershed Assessment Studies

Water Quality Monitoring for the Assessment of Watershed Projects

Thirteen agricultural watershed projects were funded jointly by the USDA National

Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) to evaluate the effects of cropland and pastureland conservation practices

on spatial and temporal trends in water quality at the watershed scale In some

projects participants also investigated how social and economic factors influence

implementation and maintenance of practices The 13 projects were conducted

from 2004 to 2011 as part of the overall Conservation Effects Assessment Project

(CEAP) The NIFA-CEAP projects were mainly retrospective most conservation

practices and water quality monitoring efforts were implemented through pro-

grams that occurred before the NIFA-CEAP projects began By synthesizing the

results of all these NIFA-CEAP projects we explore lessons learned about the

selection timing and location of conservation practices and relationships among them relative to any effects on water quality

NIFA-CEAP watershed locations

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Using Previously Collected Data

The NIFA-CEAP projects relied

mainly on past water quality

monitoring data often collected

by several agencies under differ-

ent programs and designs to

serve project needs Such data

often came from routine state

surveillance monitoring federal

agency monitoring programs

research plot- and field-scale

studies or watershed group

sampling efforts In a few

projects participants were able

to continue or supplement

contemporary monitoring

Several NIFA-CEAP projects

benefited from past intensive

monitoring efforts associated

with conservation practice

implementation The Rock Creek

(OH) project was supported by a

30-year monitoring record that

measured long-term pollutant

loads to Lake Erie during exten-

sive implementation of reduced

tillage in the watershed Both

the Walnut Creek (IA) and

Cannonsville Reservoir (NY)

projects benefited from paired-

watershed studies funded by the

US Environmental Protection

Agency that documented the

effectiveness of specific conser-

vation practices The NIFA-CEAP

projects used water quality

monitoring to help identify

pollutant sources and understand

critical watershed processes and

to guide ongoing project activi-

ties such as selection of locations

for conservation practices Water

quality monitoring data were

essential to watershed model

calibration and validation in

many NIFA-CEAP projects In a

few projects investigators were

able to use past or contemporary

monitoring data to document a

water quality response to a

conservation practice implemen-

tation

Few of the NIFA-CEAP projects

were able to document the

effects of implemented conser-

vation practices on water quality

through monitoring The moni-

toring data generally could not

be used to address the issues of

ARS monitoring station on Little River GA (photo by D Meals)

relationships among conservation

practices in a watershed or

questions about the optimal set

of practices and their optimal

placement in a watershed This

occurred mainly because the

monitoring programs were not

specifically designed to evaluate

response to treatment but were

designed to serve other goals

Lesson Water quality monitor-ing must be designed to meet

project objectives

Detecting a Water Quality Response to Treatment through Monitoring

Monitoring in a Midwestern

watershed focused on

atrazine while most historical

conservation practices had

addressed sediment In one

basin streams were monitored

for sediment and nutrients

whereas a major river in the

basin is impaired for tempera-

ture and E coli In several

watershed projects most conser-

vation practices focused on

erosion control and sediment

delivery although nutrients were

the primary water quality con-

stituents being monitored

In the Rock Creek (OH) Little

Bear River (UT) and several

other NIFA-CEAP projects collec-

tion of flow data concurrent with

water quality data was essen-

tialmdashnot only to calculate loads

but also to evaluate changes in

pollutant loadings due to cli-

matic and seasonal variation

Lesson Flow groundwater depth or similar water dis-charge measurements as well as other hydrologic covariates should be made concurrent

with measurements of water quality

Page 2

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson The water quality variables selected for monitor-ing should match the water quality problem the pollutants of concern and their sources and the conservation practices

being implemented

When implementation of

conservation practices may

be incomplete and evaluation is

time limited water quality

response may be less dramatic

than anticipated In one project

where only minimal riparian

buffers could be created mea-

surements of the primary stres-

sor (percentage of fines in

stream sediments) and basic

biological density were better

choices for detecting a response

to treatment than were complex

aquatic community metrics

Lesson Form realistic expecta-tions and select appropriate indicators to measure water quality response to imple-mented conservation practices

Water quality response to

land treatmentmdashand docu-

mentation of the response

through monitoringmdashusually

takes time In the Rock Creek

(OH) project 30 years of water

quality monitoring documented a

long-term response to wide-

spread implementation of re-

duced tillage In another hydro-

logic monitoring identified lag

times averaging 10 years for the

groundwater transport of ni-

trates from field to stream A

drought in the Spring Creek (PA)

project area delayed project

completion and water quality

changes were detected that

would not have been docu-

mented if monitoring had ended

as originally scheduled

Lesson Monitoring must con-tinue long enough to detect a response to land treatment

When and where monitoring

occurs are critically impor-

tant Two projects required

intensive storm-event monitoring

that coincided with herbicide

application schedules to effec-

tively document atrazine runoff

concentrations In the Little Bear

River watershed (UT) historical

fixed-interval sampling com-

pletely missed the storm events

that affect sediment and nutri-

ent transport Spatial distribu-

tion of monitoring is also impor-

tant especially where conserva-

tion practices are not uniformly

distributed in the watershed

Water quality improvements

within a reasonable time frame

may be more apparent in small

sub-basins than in large basins

In the High Plains Aquifer (NE)

project monitoring was strati-

fied between terrace and bot-

tomland areas because hydrol-

ogy cropping systems and

irrigation intensity differed

between the two areas This

distributed monitoring allowed

participants to detect decreases

in shallow aquifer nitrate-N

US Geological Survey monitoring station on North Fork Ninnescah River KS (photo by D Meals)

levels beneath the terrace areas

in response to irrigation manage-

ment and increased crop yields

Lesson Monitoring schedules

and locations must be adapted to pollutant behavior hydro-logic regime and the water-shed land treatment program

In two projects (Walnut Creek

IA and Goodwater Creek MO)

participants successfully applied

data from plot- and field-scale

studies to understanding rela-

tionships between pollutant

export and hydrologic processes

at the watershed level

Lesson Plot- and field-scale monitoring may provide infor-

mation on pollutant export and delivery that is critical to understanding a water quality response at the watershed level

Although sampling programs in

large watersheds may suc-

cessfully detect broad changes or

trends in water quality it is

rarely possible to link such

Page 3

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

changes to implemented conser-

vation practices without a

deliberately designed monitoring

program In general focused

paired-watershed monitoring

studies such as those carried out

in some of the NIFA-CEAP water-

sheds under previous programs

were more successful in linking

conservation practices to water

quality effects than were broad

sampling programs conducted in

large watersheds

Lesson Consider carefully designed studies in small water-sheds to document the effect of conservation practices as part of an overall watershed

project

How to Design and Conduct Water Quality Monitoring in Watershed Projects

One challenge for many of the

NIFA-CEAP projects was the

use of past water quality datamdash

especially broad-scale surveil-

lance monitoringmdashfor present-

Utah Department of Environ-mental Quality monitoring station on Little Bear River UT (photo by D Meals)

day analyses Objectives of past

monitoring are not always

consistent with current goals In

one watershed project what had

appeared to be an impressive

historical monitoring database

was found to be inadequate for

current project objectives

Water quality data may be

difficult to interpret when

changes in agencies strategies

locations sampling frequency

variables evaluated and analyti-

cal methods have occurred

Lesson Evaluate historical water quality data critically before commencing a project as past data may not be usable

for present purposes

In the Little Bear River (UT)

project water diversion and

irrigation management compli-

cated monitoring for nutrient

loads In the Iowa project

documentation of groundwater

travel times showed that water

from only ~20 of restored

prairie areas reached the stream

during the monitoring period

suggesting that greater water

quality changes could occur in

the future

Lesson An understanding of the

watershed hydrologic system is essential for interpreting monitoring results

Because much of the sediment

in the Walnut Creek (IA)

watershed was found to be

derived from stream bank ero-

sion prairie conversion had

almost no detectible effect on

watershed sediment export

during the monitoring period An

initial watershed assessment in

the Little Bear River (UT) project

showed that the upper portion of

the watershed had different land

use soils and hydrology than

the lower portion and as a result

should be monitored differently

Lesson An understanding of the watershedrsquos physiography is essential to effective monitor-ing

Topographic flow path analysis

was used in The Spring Creek

(PA) project to reveal where

concentrated runoff from source

areas would bypass buffer and

filter strip treatment zones This

kind of analysis can be used to

identify and locate critical

source areas and intercepting

treatment practices and to

interpret in-stream monitoring

data Investigators in the Little

Bear River (UT) project used

aerial video imagery to compare

stream bank and stream channel

conditions over time to evaluate

the effects of land treatment on

riparian condition

Lesson Look for creative or alternative indicators of re-sponse to treatment

How Monitoring Relates to Other Project Activities

Water quality and other data

are necessary to parameter-

ize calibrate and validate

simulation models such as SWAT

and AnnAGNPS In the Indiana

project monitoring data col-

lected at several locations within

a watershed and for a variety of

water quality variables permit-

ted multivariate model calibra-

tion giving results superior to

those from calibrating flow and

individual constituents sepa-

rately Insufficient monitoring

data can impair model applica-

tion Results of SWAT modeling in

one of the projects were limited

by the availability of precipita-

tion data from only a single

weather station in the modeled

watershed

Page 4

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson Water quality monitor-ing data are essential to the development and application of models to specific watersheds

Most broad watershed-moni-

toring programs especially

past programs but also many

contemporary efforts lack

essential data on companion

conservation practices and

agricultural management Such

data are necessary to attribute

observed changes in water

quality to changes in manage-

ment on the land Acquiring and

using spatially explicit land-

treatment data were major

challenges and stumbling blocks

for the NIFA-CEAP projects

mainly due to USDA confidential-

ity policies as well as the age of

some land treatment programs

Lesson No matter how rigorous the water quality monitoring program it will be impossible to link observed changes in water quality to land treatment

without rigorous monitoring of conservation practice imple-mentation and management activities

Experience from most of the

NIFA-CEAP projects showed

that central project activitiesmdash

land treatment monitoring

modeling and socioeconomic

analysismdashmust be linked and

conducted in a coordinated

manner that permits and encour-

ages feedback among those

involved in these components

The Cannonsville Reservoir (NY)

project was marked by close

coordination among government

agencies (city and state) farm-

ersrsquo organizations and university

researchers Project personnel in

another project observed that

project activities needed to be

synchronized logically so that

intermediate results could

contribute fully to the final

outcome The Spring Creek (PA)

project team found that it was

necessary to design and conduct

water quality monitoringmdash

including selection of appropri-

ate metricsmdashwith understanding

of the land treatment process in

mind In another watershed

project an economic analysis

conducted entirely separate from

watershed monitoring or conser-

vation activities provided results

that were of very limited utility

to the project goals

Lesson Integrate water quality monitoring simulation model-ing and conservation practice implementation into coordi-

nated activities that encourage communication and feedback among participants throughout the project

Related Resources

Osmond D D Meals D Hoag

and M Arabi 2012 (in press)

How to Build Better Agricultural

Conservation Programs to Protect

Water Quality The NIFA-CEAP

Experience Akeney IA Soil and

Water Conservation Society

Osmond D L S W Coffey

J A Gale and J Spooner 1995

Identifying and Documenting a

Water Quality Problem The Rural

Clean Water Program Experience

Raleigh NC State University

Water Quality Group Online

httpwwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

fourhtml

Spooner J D E Line S W

Coffey D L Osmond and J A

Gale 1995 Linking Water Qual-

ity Trends with Land Treatment

Trends The Rural Clean Water

Program Experience Raleigh NC

State University Water Quality

Group Online http

wwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

tenhtml

Information

For more information about

the NIFA-CEAP Synthesis contact

Deanna Osmond NC State

University (deanna_osmond

ncsuedu)

Lessons Learned from the NIFA-

CEAP (httpwwwsoilncsu

edupublicationsNIFACEAP)

NIFA-CEAP watershed information

(wwweramsinfocomceap

watershedstudies)

CEAP Homepage http

wwwnrcsusdagovwpsportal

nrcsmainnationaltechnical

nraceap

CEAP NIFA Watershed webpage

httpwwwnrcsusdagovwps

portalnrcsdetailnational

technicalnraceap

ampcid=nrcs143_014164

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the

funding supplied by the USDA

National Institute of Food and

Agriculture (NIFA) and Natural

Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) (Agreement No 2007-

51130-18575) We want to thank

all NIFA-CEAP project personnel

for their help with this publica-

tion our site visits and our

information-gathering efforts In

addition we greatly appreciate

all the time spent by key infor-

mants during our interviews with

them We also wish to thank the

USDA CEAP Steering Committee

and USDA NIFA Committee for

Shared Leadership for Water

Quality for their comments

questions and advice during this

synthesis project as well as a

special thanks to Lisa Duriancik

of NRCS

This material is based upon work

supported in part by the National

Institute of Food and Agriculture

Page 5

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Using Previously Collected Data

The NIFA-CEAP projects relied

mainly on past water quality

monitoring data often collected

by several agencies under differ-

ent programs and designs to

serve project needs Such data

often came from routine state

surveillance monitoring federal

agency monitoring programs

research plot- and field-scale

studies or watershed group

sampling efforts In a few

projects participants were able

to continue or supplement

contemporary monitoring

Several NIFA-CEAP projects

benefited from past intensive

monitoring efforts associated

with conservation practice

implementation The Rock Creek

(OH) project was supported by a

30-year monitoring record that

measured long-term pollutant

loads to Lake Erie during exten-

sive implementation of reduced

tillage in the watershed Both

the Walnut Creek (IA) and

Cannonsville Reservoir (NY)

projects benefited from paired-

watershed studies funded by the

US Environmental Protection

Agency that documented the

effectiveness of specific conser-

vation practices The NIFA-CEAP

projects used water quality

monitoring to help identify

pollutant sources and understand

critical watershed processes and

to guide ongoing project activi-

ties such as selection of locations

for conservation practices Water

quality monitoring data were

essential to watershed model

calibration and validation in

many NIFA-CEAP projects In a

few projects investigators were

able to use past or contemporary

monitoring data to document a

water quality response to a

conservation practice implemen-

tation

Few of the NIFA-CEAP projects

were able to document the

effects of implemented conser-

vation practices on water quality

through monitoring The moni-

toring data generally could not

be used to address the issues of

ARS monitoring station on Little River GA (photo by D Meals)

relationships among conservation

practices in a watershed or

questions about the optimal set

of practices and their optimal

placement in a watershed This

occurred mainly because the

monitoring programs were not

specifically designed to evaluate

response to treatment but were

designed to serve other goals

Lesson Water quality monitor-ing must be designed to meet

project objectives

Detecting a Water Quality Response to Treatment through Monitoring

Monitoring in a Midwestern

watershed focused on

atrazine while most historical

conservation practices had

addressed sediment In one

basin streams were monitored

for sediment and nutrients

whereas a major river in the

basin is impaired for tempera-

ture and E coli In several

watershed projects most conser-

vation practices focused on

erosion control and sediment

delivery although nutrients were

the primary water quality con-

stituents being monitored

In the Rock Creek (OH) Little

Bear River (UT) and several

other NIFA-CEAP projects collec-

tion of flow data concurrent with

water quality data was essen-

tialmdashnot only to calculate loads

but also to evaluate changes in

pollutant loadings due to cli-

matic and seasonal variation

Lesson Flow groundwater depth or similar water dis-charge measurements as well as other hydrologic covariates should be made concurrent

with measurements of water quality

Page 2

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson The water quality variables selected for monitor-ing should match the water quality problem the pollutants of concern and their sources and the conservation practices

being implemented

When implementation of

conservation practices may

be incomplete and evaluation is

time limited water quality

response may be less dramatic

than anticipated In one project

where only minimal riparian

buffers could be created mea-

surements of the primary stres-

sor (percentage of fines in

stream sediments) and basic

biological density were better

choices for detecting a response

to treatment than were complex

aquatic community metrics

Lesson Form realistic expecta-tions and select appropriate indicators to measure water quality response to imple-mented conservation practices

Water quality response to

land treatmentmdashand docu-

mentation of the response

through monitoringmdashusually

takes time In the Rock Creek

(OH) project 30 years of water

quality monitoring documented a

long-term response to wide-

spread implementation of re-

duced tillage In another hydro-

logic monitoring identified lag

times averaging 10 years for the

groundwater transport of ni-

trates from field to stream A

drought in the Spring Creek (PA)

project area delayed project

completion and water quality

changes were detected that

would not have been docu-

mented if monitoring had ended

as originally scheduled

Lesson Monitoring must con-tinue long enough to detect a response to land treatment

When and where monitoring

occurs are critically impor-

tant Two projects required

intensive storm-event monitoring

that coincided with herbicide

application schedules to effec-

tively document atrazine runoff

concentrations In the Little Bear

River watershed (UT) historical

fixed-interval sampling com-

pletely missed the storm events

that affect sediment and nutri-

ent transport Spatial distribu-

tion of monitoring is also impor-

tant especially where conserva-

tion practices are not uniformly

distributed in the watershed

Water quality improvements

within a reasonable time frame

may be more apparent in small

sub-basins than in large basins

In the High Plains Aquifer (NE)

project monitoring was strati-

fied between terrace and bot-

tomland areas because hydrol-

ogy cropping systems and

irrigation intensity differed

between the two areas This

distributed monitoring allowed

participants to detect decreases

in shallow aquifer nitrate-N

US Geological Survey monitoring station on North Fork Ninnescah River KS (photo by D Meals)

levels beneath the terrace areas

in response to irrigation manage-

ment and increased crop yields

Lesson Monitoring schedules

and locations must be adapted to pollutant behavior hydro-logic regime and the water-shed land treatment program

In two projects (Walnut Creek

IA and Goodwater Creek MO)

participants successfully applied

data from plot- and field-scale

studies to understanding rela-

tionships between pollutant

export and hydrologic processes

at the watershed level

Lesson Plot- and field-scale monitoring may provide infor-

mation on pollutant export and delivery that is critical to understanding a water quality response at the watershed level

Although sampling programs in

large watersheds may suc-

cessfully detect broad changes or

trends in water quality it is

rarely possible to link such

Page 3

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

changes to implemented conser-

vation practices without a

deliberately designed monitoring

program In general focused

paired-watershed monitoring

studies such as those carried out

in some of the NIFA-CEAP water-

sheds under previous programs

were more successful in linking

conservation practices to water

quality effects than were broad

sampling programs conducted in

large watersheds

Lesson Consider carefully designed studies in small water-sheds to document the effect of conservation practices as part of an overall watershed

project

How to Design and Conduct Water Quality Monitoring in Watershed Projects

One challenge for many of the

NIFA-CEAP projects was the

use of past water quality datamdash

especially broad-scale surveil-

lance monitoringmdashfor present-

Utah Department of Environ-mental Quality monitoring station on Little Bear River UT (photo by D Meals)

day analyses Objectives of past

monitoring are not always

consistent with current goals In

one watershed project what had

appeared to be an impressive

historical monitoring database

was found to be inadequate for

current project objectives

Water quality data may be

difficult to interpret when

changes in agencies strategies

locations sampling frequency

variables evaluated and analyti-

cal methods have occurred

Lesson Evaluate historical water quality data critically before commencing a project as past data may not be usable

for present purposes

In the Little Bear River (UT)

project water diversion and

irrigation management compli-

cated monitoring for nutrient

loads In the Iowa project

documentation of groundwater

travel times showed that water

from only ~20 of restored

prairie areas reached the stream

during the monitoring period

suggesting that greater water

quality changes could occur in

the future

Lesson An understanding of the

watershed hydrologic system is essential for interpreting monitoring results

Because much of the sediment

in the Walnut Creek (IA)

watershed was found to be

derived from stream bank ero-

sion prairie conversion had

almost no detectible effect on

watershed sediment export

during the monitoring period An

initial watershed assessment in

the Little Bear River (UT) project

showed that the upper portion of

the watershed had different land

use soils and hydrology than

the lower portion and as a result

should be monitored differently

Lesson An understanding of the watershedrsquos physiography is essential to effective monitor-ing

Topographic flow path analysis

was used in The Spring Creek

(PA) project to reveal where

concentrated runoff from source

areas would bypass buffer and

filter strip treatment zones This

kind of analysis can be used to

identify and locate critical

source areas and intercepting

treatment practices and to

interpret in-stream monitoring

data Investigators in the Little

Bear River (UT) project used

aerial video imagery to compare

stream bank and stream channel

conditions over time to evaluate

the effects of land treatment on

riparian condition

Lesson Look for creative or alternative indicators of re-sponse to treatment

How Monitoring Relates to Other Project Activities

Water quality and other data

are necessary to parameter-

ize calibrate and validate

simulation models such as SWAT

and AnnAGNPS In the Indiana

project monitoring data col-

lected at several locations within

a watershed and for a variety of

water quality variables permit-

ted multivariate model calibra-

tion giving results superior to

those from calibrating flow and

individual constituents sepa-

rately Insufficient monitoring

data can impair model applica-

tion Results of SWAT modeling in

one of the projects were limited

by the availability of precipita-

tion data from only a single

weather station in the modeled

watershed

Page 4

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson Water quality monitor-ing data are essential to the development and application of models to specific watersheds

Most broad watershed-moni-

toring programs especially

past programs but also many

contemporary efforts lack

essential data on companion

conservation practices and

agricultural management Such

data are necessary to attribute

observed changes in water

quality to changes in manage-

ment on the land Acquiring and

using spatially explicit land-

treatment data were major

challenges and stumbling blocks

for the NIFA-CEAP projects

mainly due to USDA confidential-

ity policies as well as the age of

some land treatment programs

Lesson No matter how rigorous the water quality monitoring program it will be impossible to link observed changes in water quality to land treatment

without rigorous monitoring of conservation practice imple-mentation and management activities

Experience from most of the

NIFA-CEAP projects showed

that central project activitiesmdash

land treatment monitoring

modeling and socioeconomic

analysismdashmust be linked and

conducted in a coordinated

manner that permits and encour-

ages feedback among those

involved in these components

The Cannonsville Reservoir (NY)

project was marked by close

coordination among government

agencies (city and state) farm-

ersrsquo organizations and university

researchers Project personnel in

another project observed that

project activities needed to be

synchronized logically so that

intermediate results could

contribute fully to the final

outcome The Spring Creek (PA)

project team found that it was

necessary to design and conduct

water quality monitoringmdash

including selection of appropri-

ate metricsmdashwith understanding

of the land treatment process in

mind In another watershed

project an economic analysis

conducted entirely separate from

watershed monitoring or conser-

vation activities provided results

that were of very limited utility

to the project goals

Lesson Integrate water quality monitoring simulation model-ing and conservation practice implementation into coordi-

nated activities that encourage communication and feedback among participants throughout the project

Related Resources

Osmond D D Meals D Hoag

and M Arabi 2012 (in press)

How to Build Better Agricultural

Conservation Programs to Protect

Water Quality The NIFA-CEAP

Experience Akeney IA Soil and

Water Conservation Society

Osmond D L S W Coffey

J A Gale and J Spooner 1995

Identifying and Documenting a

Water Quality Problem The Rural

Clean Water Program Experience

Raleigh NC State University

Water Quality Group Online

httpwwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

fourhtml

Spooner J D E Line S W

Coffey D L Osmond and J A

Gale 1995 Linking Water Qual-

ity Trends with Land Treatment

Trends The Rural Clean Water

Program Experience Raleigh NC

State University Water Quality

Group Online http

wwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

tenhtml

Information

For more information about

the NIFA-CEAP Synthesis contact

Deanna Osmond NC State

University (deanna_osmond

ncsuedu)

Lessons Learned from the NIFA-

CEAP (httpwwwsoilncsu

edupublicationsNIFACEAP)

NIFA-CEAP watershed information

(wwweramsinfocomceap

watershedstudies)

CEAP Homepage http

wwwnrcsusdagovwpsportal

nrcsmainnationaltechnical

nraceap

CEAP NIFA Watershed webpage

httpwwwnrcsusdagovwps

portalnrcsdetailnational

technicalnraceap

ampcid=nrcs143_014164

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the

funding supplied by the USDA

National Institute of Food and

Agriculture (NIFA) and Natural

Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) (Agreement No 2007-

51130-18575) We want to thank

all NIFA-CEAP project personnel

for their help with this publica-

tion our site visits and our

information-gathering efforts In

addition we greatly appreciate

all the time spent by key infor-

mants during our interviews with

them We also wish to thank the

USDA CEAP Steering Committee

and USDA NIFA Committee for

Shared Leadership for Water

Quality for their comments

questions and advice during this

synthesis project as well as a

special thanks to Lisa Duriancik

of NRCS

This material is based upon work

supported in part by the National

Institute of Food and Agriculture

Page 5

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson The water quality variables selected for monitor-ing should match the water quality problem the pollutants of concern and their sources and the conservation practices

being implemented

When implementation of

conservation practices may

be incomplete and evaluation is

time limited water quality

response may be less dramatic

than anticipated In one project

where only minimal riparian

buffers could be created mea-

surements of the primary stres-

sor (percentage of fines in

stream sediments) and basic

biological density were better

choices for detecting a response

to treatment than were complex

aquatic community metrics

Lesson Form realistic expecta-tions and select appropriate indicators to measure water quality response to imple-mented conservation practices

Water quality response to

land treatmentmdashand docu-

mentation of the response

through monitoringmdashusually

takes time In the Rock Creek

(OH) project 30 years of water

quality monitoring documented a

long-term response to wide-

spread implementation of re-

duced tillage In another hydro-

logic monitoring identified lag

times averaging 10 years for the

groundwater transport of ni-

trates from field to stream A

drought in the Spring Creek (PA)

project area delayed project

completion and water quality

changes were detected that

would not have been docu-

mented if monitoring had ended

as originally scheduled

Lesson Monitoring must con-tinue long enough to detect a response to land treatment

When and where monitoring

occurs are critically impor-

tant Two projects required

intensive storm-event monitoring

that coincided with herbicide

application schedules to effec-

tively document atrazine runoff

concentrations In the Little Bear

River watershed (UT) historical

fixed-interval sampling com-

pletely missed the storm events

that affect sediment and nutri-

ent transport Spatial distribu-

tion of monitoring is also impor-

tant especially where conserva-

tion practices are not uniformly

distributed in the watershed

Water quality improvements

within a reasonable time frame

may be more apparent in small

sub-basins than in large basins

In the High Plains Aquifer (NE)

project monitoring was strati-

fied between terrace and bot-

tomland areas because hydrol-

ogy cropping systems and

irrigation intensity differed

between the two areas This

distributed monitoring allowed

participants to detect decreases

in shallow aquifer nitrate-N

US Geological Survey monitoring station on North Fork Ninnescah River KS (photo by D Meals)

levels beneath the terrace areas

in response to irrigation manage-

ment and increased crop yields

Lesson Monitoring schedules

and locations must be adapted to pollutant behavior hydro-logic regime and the water-shed land treatment program

In two projects (Walnut Creek

IA and Goodwater Creek MO)

participants successfully applied

data from plot- and field-scale

studies to understanding rela-

tionships between pollutant

export and hydrologic processes

at the watershed level

Lesson Plot- and field-scale monitoring may provide infor-

mation on pollutant export and delivery that is critical to understanding a water quality response at the watershed level

Although sampling programs in

large watersheds may suc-

cessfully detect broad changes or

trends in water quality it is

rarely possible to link such

Page 3

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

changes to implemented conser-

vation practices without a

deliberately designed monitoring

program In general focused

paired-watershed monitoring

studies such as those carried out

in some of the NIFA-CEAP water-

sheds under previous programs

were more successful in linking

conservation practices to water

quality effects than were broad

sampling programs conducted in

large watersheds

Lesson Consider carefully designed studies in small water-sheds to document the effect of conservation practices as part of an overall watershed

project

How to Design and Conduct Water Quality Monitoring in Watershed Projects

One challenge for many of the

NIFA-CEAP projects was the

use of past water quality datamdash

especially broad-scale surveil-

lance monitoringmdashfor present-

Utah Department of Environ-mental Quality monitoring station on Little Bear River UT (photo by D Meals)

day analyses Objectives of past

monitoring are not always

consistent with current goals In

one watershed project what had

appeared to be an impressive

historical monitoring database

was found to be inadequate for

current project objectives

Water quality data may be

difficult to interpret when

changes in agencies strategies

locations sampling frequency

variables evaluated and analyti-

cal methods have occurred

Lesson Evaluate historical water quality data critically before commencing a project as past data may not be usable

for present purposes

In the Little Bear River (UT)

project water diversion and

irrigation management compli-

cated monitoring for nutrient

loads In the Iowa project

documentation of groundwater

travel times showed that water

from only ~20 of restored

prairie areas reached the stream

during the monitoring period

suggesting that greater water

quality changes could occur in

the future

Lesson An understanding of the

watershed hydrologic system is essential for interpreting monitoring results

Because much of the sediment

in the Walnut Creek (IA)

watershed was found to be

derived from stream bank ero-

sion prairie conversion had

almost no detectible effect on

watershed sediment export

during the monitoring period An

initial watershed assessment in

the Little Bear River (UT) project

showed that the upper portion of

the watershed had different land

use soils and hydrology than

the lower portion and as a result

should be monitored differently

Lesson An understanding of the watershedrsquos physiography is essential to effective monitor-ing

Topographic flow path analysis

was used in The Spring Creek

(PA) project to reveal where

concentrated runoff from source

areas would bypass buffer and

filter strip treatment zones This

kind of analysis can be used to

identify and locate critical

source areas and intercepting

treatment practices and to

interpret in-stream monitoring

data Investigators in the Little

Bear River (UT) project used

aerial video imagery to compare

stream bank and stream channel

conditions over time to evaluate

the effects of land treatment on

riparian condition

Lesson Look for creative or alternative indicators of re-sponse to treatment

How Monitoring Relates to Other Project Activities

Water quality and other data

are necessary to parameter-

ize calibrate and validate

simulation models such as SWAT

and AnnAGNPS In the Indiana

project monitoring data col-

lected at several locations within

a watershed and for a variety of

water quality variables permit-

ted multivariate model calibra-

tion giving results superior to

those from calibrating flow and

individual constituents sepa-

rately Insufficient monitoring

data can impair model applica-

tion Results of SWAT modeling in

one of the projects were limited

by the availability of precipita-

tion data from only a single

weather station in the modeled

watershed

Page 4

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson Water quality monitor-ing data are essential to the development and application of models to specific watersheds

Most broad watershed-moni-

toring programs especially

past programs but also many

contemporary efforts lack

essential data on companion

conservation practices and

agricultural management Such

data are necessary to attribute

observed changes in water

quality to changes in manage-

ment on the land Acquiring and

using spatially explicit land-

treatment data were major

challenges and stumbling blocks

for the NIFA-CEAP projects

mainly due to USDA confidential-

ity policies as well as the age of

some land treatment programs

Lesson No matter how rigorous the water quality monitoring program it will be impossible to link observed changes in water quality to land treatment

without rigorous monitoring of conservation practice imple-mentation and management activities

Experience from most of the

NIFA-CEAP projects showed

that central project activitiesmdash

land treatment monitoring

modeling and socioeconomic

analysismdashmust be linked and

conducted in a coordinated

manner that permits and encour-

ages feedback among those

involved in these components

The Cannonsville Reservoir (NY)

project was marked by close

coordination among government

agencies (city and state) farm-

ersrsquo organizations and university

researchers Project personnel in

another project observed that

project activities needed to be

synchronized logically so that

intermediate results could

contribute fully to the final

outcome The Spring Creek (PA)

project team found that it was

necessary to design and conduct

water quality monitoringmdash

including selection of appropri-

ate metricsmdashwith understanding

of the land treatment process in

mind In another watershed

project an economic analysis

conducted entirely separate from

watershed monitoring or conser-

vation activities provided results

that were of very limited utility

to the project goals

Lesson Integrate water quality monitoring simulation model-ing and conservation practice implementation into coordi-

nated activities that encourage communication and feedback among participants throughout the project

Related Resources

Osmond D D Meals D Hoag

and M Arabi 2012 (in press)

How to Build Better Agricultural

Conservation Programs to Protect

Water Quality The NIFA-CEAP

Experience Akeney IA Soil and

Water Conservation Society

Osmond D L S W Coffey

J A Gale and J Spooner 1995

Identifying and Documenting a

Water Quality Problem The Rural

Clean Water Program Experience

Raleigh NC State University

Water Quality Group Online

httpwwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

fourhtml

Spooner J D E Line S W

Coffey D L Osmond and J A

Gale 1995 Linking Water Qual-

ity Trends with Land Treatment

Trends The Rural Clean Water

Program Experience Raleigh NC

State University Water Quality

Group Online http

wwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

tenhtml

Information

For more information about

the NIFA-CEAP Synthesis contact

Deanna Osmond NC State

University (deanna_osmond

ncsuedu)

Lessons Learned from the NIFA-

CEAP (httpwwwsoilncsu

edupublicationsNIFACEAP)

NIFA-CEAP watershed information

(wwweramsinfocomceap

watershedstudies)

CEAP Homepage http

wwwnrcsusdagovwpsportal

nrcsmainnationaltechnical

nraceap

CEAP NIFA Watershed webpage

httpwwwnrcsusdagovwps

portalnrcsdetailnational

technicalnraceap

ampcid=nrcs143_014164

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the

funding supplied by the USDA

National Institute of Food and

Agriculture (NIFA) and Natural

Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) (Agreement No 2007-

51130-18575) We want to thank

all NIFA-CEAP project personnel

for their help with this publica-

tion our site visits and our

information-gathering efforts In

addition we greatly appreciate

all the time spent by key infor-

mants during our interviews with

them We also wish to thank the

USDA CEAP Steering Committee

and USDA NIFA Committee for

Shared Leadership for Water

Quality for their comments

questions and advice during this

synthesis project as well as a

special thanks to Lisa Duriancik

of NRCS

This material is based upon work

supported in part by the National

Institute of Food and Agriculture

Page 5

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

changes to implemented conser-

vation practices without a

deliberately designed monitoring

program In general focused

paired-watershed monitoring

studies such as those carried out

in some of the NIFA-CEAP water-

sheds under previous programs

were more successful in linking

conservation practices to water

quality effects than were broad

sampling programs conducted in

large watersheds

Lesson Consider carefully designed studies in small water-sheds to document the effect of conservation practices as part of an overall watershed

project

How to Design and Conduct Water Quality Monitoring in Watershed Projects

One challenge for many of the

NIFA-CEAP projects was the

use of past water quality datamdash

especially broad-scale surveil-

lance monitoringmdashfor present-

Utah Department of Environ-mental Quality monitoring station on Little Bear River UT (photo by D Meals)

day analyses Objectives of past

monitoring are not always

consistent with current goals In

one watershed project what had

appeared to be an impressive

historical monitoring database

was found to be inadequate for

current project objectives

Water quality data may be

difficult to interpret when

changes in agencies strategies

locations sampling frequency

variables evaluated and analyti-

cal methods have occurred

Lesson Evaluate historical water quality data critically before commencing a project as past data may not be usable

for present purposes

In the Little Bear River (UT)

project water diversion and

irrigation management compli-

cated monitoring for nutrient

loads In the Iowa project

documentation of groundwater

travel times showed that water

from only ~20 of restored

prairie areas reached the stream

during the monitoring period

suggesting that greater water

quality changes could occur in

the future

Lesson An understanding of the

watershed hydrologic system is essential for interpreting monitoring results

Because much of the sediment

in the Walnut Creek (IA)

watershed was found to be

derived from stream bank ero-

sion prairie conversion had

almost no detectible effect on

watershed sediment export

during the monitoring period An

initial watershed assessment in

the Little Bear River (UT) project

showed that the upper portion of

the watershed had different land

use soils and hydrology than

the lower portion and as a result

should be monitored differently

Lesson An understanding of the watershedrsquos physiography is essential to effective monitor-ing

Topographic flow path analysis

was used in The Spring Creek

(PA) project to reveal where

concentrated runoff from source

areas would bypass buffer and

filter strip treatment zones This

kind of analysis can be used to

identify and locate critical

source areas and intercepting

treatment practices and to

interpret in-stream monitoring

data Investigators in the Little

Bear River (UT) project used

aerial video imagery to compare

stream bank and stream channel

conditions over time to evaluate

the effects of land treatment on

riparian condition

Lesson Look for creative or alternative indicators of re-sponse to treatment

How Monitoring Relates to Other Project Activities

Water quality and other data

are necessary to parameter-

ize calibrate and validate

simulation models such as SWAT

and AnnAGNPS In the Indiana

project monitoring data col-

lected at several locations within

a watershed and for a variety of

water quality variables permit-

ted multivariate model calibra-

tion giving results superior to

those from calibrating flow and

individual constituents sepa-

rately Insufficient monitoring

data can impair model applica-

tion Results of SWAT modeling in

one of the projects were limited

by the availability of precipita-

tion data from only a single

weather station in the modeled

watershed

Page 4

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson Water quality monitor-ing data are essential to the development and application of models to specific watersheds

Most broad watershed-moni-

toring programs especially

past programs but also many

contemporary efforts lack

essential data on companion

conservation practices and

agricultural management Such

data are necessary to attribute

observed changes in water

quality to changes in manage-

ment on the land Acquiring and

using spatially explicit land-

treatment data were major

challenges and stumbling blocks

for the NIFA-CEAP projects

mainly due to USDA confidential-

ity policies as well as the age of

some land treatment programs

Lesson No matter how rigorous the water quality monitoring program it will be impossible to link observed changes in water quality to land treatment

without rigorous monitoring of conservation practice imple-mentation and management activities

Experience from most of the

NIFA-CEAP projects showed

that central project activitiesmdash

land treatment monitoring

modeling and socioeconomic

analysismdashmust be linked and

conducted in a coordinated

manner that permits and encour-

ages feedback among those

involved in these components

The Cannonsville Reservoir (NY)

project was marked by close

coordination among government

agencies (city and state) farm-

ersrsquo organizations and university

researchers Project personnel in

another project observed that

project activities needed to be

synchronized logically so that

intermediate results could

contribute fully to the final

outcome The Spring Creek (PA)

project team found that it was

necessary to design and conduct

water quality monitoringmdash

including selection of appropri-

ate metricsmdashwith understanding

of the land treatment process in

mind In another watershed

project an economic analysis

conducted entirely separate from

watershed monitoring or conser-

vation activities provided results

that were of very limited utility

to the project goals

Lesson Integrate water quality monitoring simulation model-ing and conservation practice implementation into coordi-

nated activities that encourage communication and feedback among participants throughout the project

Related Resources

Osmond D D Meals D Hoag

and M Arabi 2012 (in press)

How to Build Better Agricultural

Conservation Programs to Protect

Water Quality The NIFA-CEAP

Experience Akeney IA Soil and

Water Conservation Society

Osmond D L S W Coffey

J A Gale and J Spooner 1995

Identifying and Documenting a

Water Quality Problem The Rural

Clean Water Program Experience

Raleigh NC State University

Water Quality Group Online

httpwwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

fourhtml

Spooner J D E Line S W

Coffey D L Osmond and J A

Gale 1995 Linking Water Qual-

ity Trends with Land Treatment

Trends The Rural Clean Water

Program Experience Raleigh NC

State University Water Quality

Group Online http

wwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

tenhtml

Information

For more information about

the NIFA-CEAP Synthesis contact

Deanna Osmond NC State

University (deanna_osmond

ncsuedu)

Lessons Learned from the NIFA-

CEAP (httpwwwsoilncsu

edupublicationsNIFACEAP)

NIFA-CEAP watershed information

(wwweramsinfocomceap

watershedstudies)

CEAP Homepage http

wwwnrcsusdagovwpsportal

nrcsmainnationaltechnical

nraceap

CEAP NIFA Watershed webpage

httpwwwnrcsusdagovwps

portalnrcsdetailnational

technicalnraceap

ampcid=nrcs143_014164

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the

funding supplied by the USDA

National Institute of Food and

Agriculture (NIFA) and Natural

Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) (Agreement No 2007-

51130-18575) We want to thank

all NIFA-CEAP project personnel

for their help with this publica-

tion our site visits and our

information-gathering efforts In

addition we greatly appreciate

all the time spent by key infor-

mants during our interviews with

them We also wish to thank the

USDA CEAP Steering Committee

and USDA NIFA Committee for

Shared Leadership for Water

Quality for their comments

questions and advice during this

synthesis project as well as a

special thanks to Lisa Duriancik

of NRCS

This material is based upon work

supported in part by the National

Institute of Food and Agriculture

Page 5

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

Lesson Water quality monitor-ing data are essential to the development and application of models to specific watersheds

Most broad watershed-moni-

toring programs especially

past programs but also many

contemporary efforts lack

essential data on companion

conservation practices and

agricultural management Such

data are necessary to attribute

observed changes in water

quality to changes in manage-

ment on the land Acquiring and

using spatially explicit land-

treatment data were major

challenges and stumbling blocks

for the NIFA-CEAP projects

mainly due to USDA confidential-

ity policies as well as the age of

some land treatment programs

Lesson No matter how rigorous the water quality monitoring program it will be impossible to link observed changes in water quality to land treatment

without rigorous monitoring of conservation practice imple-mentation and management activities

Experience from most of the

NIFA-CEAP projects showed

that central project activitiesmdash

land treatment monitoring

modeling and socioeconomic

analysismdashmust be linked and

conducted in a coordinated

manner that permits and encour-

ages feedback among those

involved in these components

The Cannonsville Reservoir (NY)

project was marked by close

coordination among government

agencies (city and state) farm-

ersrsquo organizations and university

researchers Project personnel in

another project observed that

project activities needed to be

synchronized logically so that

intermediate results could

contribute fully to the final

outcome The Spring Creek (PA)

project team found that it was

necessary to design and conduct

water quality monitoringmdash

including selection of appropri-

ate metricsmdashwith understanding

of the land treatment process in

mind In another watershed

project an economic analysis

conducted entirely separate from

watershed monitoring or conser-

vation activities provided results

that were of very limited utility

to the project goals

Lesson Integrate water quality monitoring simulation model-ing and conservation practice implementation into coordi-

nated activities that encourage communication and feedback among participants throughout the project

Related Resources

Osmond D D Meals D Hoag

and M Arabi 2012 (in press)

How to Build Better Agricultural

Conservation Programs to Protect

Water Quality The NIFA-CEAP

Experience Akeney IA Soil and

Water Conservation Society

Osmond D L S W Coffey

J A Gale and J Spooner 1995

Identifying and Documenting a

Water Quality Problem The Rural

Clean Water Program Experience

Raleigh NC State University

Water Quality Group Online

httpwwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

fourhtml

Spooner J D E Line S W

Coffey D L Osmond and J A

Gale 1995 Linking Water Qual-

ity Trends with Land Treatment

Trends The Rural Clean Water

Program Experience Raleigh NC

State University Water Quality

Group Online http

wwwwaterncsuedu

watershedssinfobrochures

tenhtml

Information

For more information about

the NIFA-CEAP Synthesis contact

Deanna Osmond NC State

University (deanna_osmond

ncsuedu)

Lessons Learned from the NIFA-

CEAP (httpwwwsoilncsu

edupublicationsNIFACEAP)

NIFA-CEAP watershed information

(wwweramsinfocomceap

watershedstudies)

CEAP Homepage http

wwwnrcsusdagovwpsportal

nrcsmainnationaltechnical

nraceap

CEAP NIFA Watershed webpage

httpwwwnrcsusdagovwps

portalnrcsdetailnational

technicalnraceap

ampcid=nrcs143_014164

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the

funding supplied by the USDA

National Institute of Food and

Agriculture (NIFA) and Natural

Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) (Agreement No 2007-

51130-18575) We want to thank

all NIFA-CEAP project personnel

for their help with this publica-

tion our site visits and our

information-gathering efforts In

addition we greatly appreciate

all the time spent by key infor-

mants during our interviews with

them We also wish to thank the

USDA CEAP Steering Committee

and USDA NIFA Committee for

Shared Leadership for Water

Quality for their comments

questions and advice during this

synthesis project as well as a

special thanks to Lisa Duriancik

of NRCS

This material is based upon work

supported in part by the National

Institute of Food and Agriculture

Page 5

Lessons Learned from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-CEAP Synthesis Fact Sheet 5

and the Natural Resources Conser-

vation Service US Department

of Agriculture under Agreement

No 2007-51130-18575 Any opin-

ions findings conclusions or

recommendations expressed in

this publication are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily

reflect the view of the US

Department of Agriculture USDA

is an equal opportunity provider

and employer

Prepared by

Donald W Meals IceNine Environ-

mental Consulting

Deanna L Osmond Jean Spooner

and Daniel E Line NC State

University

Citation

Meals D W D L Osmond J

Spooner and DE Line 2012

Lessons Learned from the NIFA-

CEAP Water Quality Monitoring

for the Assessment of Watershed

Projects NC State University

Raleigh NC

Page 6